Subject: [P2PSIP] adding option header to all methods

From: Bruce Lowekamp <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:14:33 +0200

Part of a recent thread about Client support discussed the option of
adding additional semantics to an existing method vs adding a new
method.  We currently have extension points for some structures, but
we don't have a general way for an extension to add new semantics or
options to an existing method.

One possible solution is to add an Option header to the existing
methods, in the same spirit of ForwardingOption in the forwarding
header.   A TLV structure with an option for whether it is
mandatory/optional to understand would allow significant extensibility
without defining new methods for every new extension.

Bruce

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:00:51 +0200

I'd certainly support this. I think in the meeting someone already
said it, but will better to have this and not need it than need it and
not have it.

David (as individual)

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Bruce Lowekamp<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>